Do Christians desire to replace God with Jesus?

[Strong in Him]

The point is, "millions of Christians" and their teachers, theologians and clergy say they are Scriptural. They teach transubstantiation (erroneously) from the NT. Therefore, your statement in post #77 is false.

Not false, exactly; maybe badly worded.

I am thinking of, and talking about, the Gospel; doctrine. There is one Gospel and I am pretty sure that if you asked people from any denomination, you'd find that we all agree on it. This Gospel is taught in Scripture.
It is that God created the world, and us. We sinned and rebelled against God, yet instead of washing his hands of us, destroying us or whatever, which he was entitled to do, God sent Jesus to die for us and reconcile us to himself. Jesus was the perfect Lamb of God, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:20; the Good Shepherd who lay down his life for his sheep, John 10:11, the One through whom we are reconciled to God, Romans 5:10, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 and have peace with God, Romans 5:1. This is not because Jesus was just a perfect man who managed not to sin at all, but because he was, and is, God - God himself was paying the price for our sin against him.
Three days after Jesus died on the cross, he was raised again. God raised him, thus proving that Jesus was who he had claimed to be; one with the Father, the way to the Father, the Truth, the Good Shepherd who had authority to lay down his life and whose blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins. After Jesus ascended, he sent his Holy Spirit who gives us gifts and can live IN us; guiding us, convicting us of sin, empowering and equipping us to serve God. One day, Jesus will return to earth, not as a human and good teacher, but as king.
This is the Gospel. This is what is revealed and taught in Scripture, is what saves us and is what, I'm sure, all Christians agree on and proclaim.
This is what I mean when I say that clergy etc teach doctrine from Scripture. No one would know anything about God without Scripture. No one would make up, or I think be able to make up, a divine being who entered into the world that he made, became one of us and then died to reconcile us to himself. I can't imagine anyone saying that Jesus was divine, that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or any other doctrine of our faith unless there was reason for saying so - and that reason is that it's taught in Scripture.

It's true that the church has many practices - adult baptism, wearing robes, the gender of clergy, what exactly happens at communion etc. We believe, practice and hold onto these things mostly because of the way we read and interpret Scripture. Some of us may be right about these things; others may have interpreted/applied the words of Scripture wrongly on the matter. That is, I think, partly why we have so many different denominations. I'm sure all these things are mentioned in, and can be justified by, Scripture; people can use the Bible to prove whatever they want to prove. But these things are not Christian doctrine.
The tragedy is that we can spend so much time and effort arguing about our differences and others' interpretation of Scripture, that we forget to proclaim the Gospel and stand up for the faith which unites us.

The deity of Christ is something that has always divided people. But right from the early days, anyone who taught otherwise was considered a false teacher, and anyone who believed otherwise was said to have been led astray from the truth.

Christians believe they can eat unclean animal flesh (bacon, dogs, slugs, vultures, jelly fish, etc). I will be starting a thread on this soon. You can defend your views there.

Christians are allowed to eat bacon, ham etc. Some may choose not to; some may do that because they believe the Bible teaches otherwise. I don't, so I eat it. I do not condemn anyone who believe that God's word says otherwise; I don't agree, but this is a personal practice, not part of the Christian Gospel necessary for salvation.

The Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:28), not just for Jews. The law does not save us. It points out our sins. If you conveniently abolish the law, you abolish that which points out our sins. No Sabbath law, no sin. My, how convenient. The only problem is, Sabbath breakers are still breaking the Sabbath even though they don't acknowledge their sin.

It depends what you mean by "keeping the Sabbath".
If you mean setting aside one day to worship God; many do that. In fact we would say that he worship and honour God every day.
If you mean sitting around doing nothing on a Saturday because that is how to follow God's example of resting from work; I would disagree with that. For myself, I do not have a job, so do not need to rest from it to spend time with God. When I did have a job I often worked on a Saturday - nurses etc have to; people don't refrain from illness at the weekend.
The early church quickly began to celebrate Sunday as the Lord's day, the day on which he was raised from the dead, and that still continues today.

gadar perets said: ↑
the names "Jehovah" and "Jesus"

I mean "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are not the names of the Father and the Son, yet Christians accept both as true because their Bible has them in it.

Jesus was the human name given to the Son of God when he became flesh and was born. The important issue is not whether you call him Yeshua, Joshua or Jesus, but whether you acknowledge who he was and what he said, taught and claimed. If someone always refers to Jesus by his Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/English name because they insist that that is correct, but they reject what he taught and stood for, and dismiss him as the only way to God; that won't do them any good.

They are practiced because they are doctrines. The Catholic church teaches them as NT doctrine.

Yes, maybe they do.
But they are not the Gospel. If we were facing persecution and the question was "do you believe that Jesus was God and has saved you; yes or no?" There'd be no point in saying, "yes, but infant baptism, wearing robes, transubstantiation are" also necessary for salvation". And it would be wrong to say so. Jesus saves; NOT Jesus + something else. Believing these things doesn't make you any holier a person, or any more saved than someone who rejects them.

Yes, that is the Christian Gospel. The Scriptural Gospel is summed up in John 3:16;

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
​

Not;

For God so loved the world, that he gave himself, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

John 3:16 doesn't have those words, but that is the Christian Gospel - that we were far from God, dead in our sins and deserved death, yet God himself paid the price for us.

Again, you have said that Jesus was not ONLY a man. If you reject the teaching that he was God when he was on earth; who/what was he? An angel?
Even the most righteous prophet would not, I believe, have claimed the things that Jesus claimed, and no one has ever described a prophet in the way that he described Jesus - someone who shared God's glory before the world began and who is superior to the angels, Hebrews 1:4.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Scriptures declare God has inherent immortality. He cannot die.

"There is only one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible--even Jesus Christ our Lord." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, 7

Behold the mystery of our religion: God, who cannot die, died.
"Without controversy great is the mystery of our religion: He was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1 Timothy 3:16)

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gadar perets]

"There is only one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible--even Jesus Christ our Lord." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, 7

What a foolish, nonsensical statement. I would be embarrassed to quote it.

Behold the mystery of our religion: God, who cannot die, died.
"Without controversy great is the mystery of our religion: He was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1 Timothy 3:16)

-CryptoLutheran

The statement in normal font is indeed a mystery. It is a mystery because it is false and impossible. God, who cannot die, did not die.

I totally agree with the verse in italics.

 

[gadar perets]

This Gospel is taught in Scripture.
It is that God created the world, and us. We sinned and rebelled against God, yet instead of washing his hands of us, destroying us or whatever, which he was entitled to do, God sent Jesus to die for us and reconcile us to himself. Jesus was the perfect Lamb of God, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:20; the Good Shepherd who lay down his life for his sheep, John 10:11, the One through whom we are reconciled to God, Romans 5:10, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 and have peace with God, Romans 5:1.

I agree except “God” did not send “Jesus”. “Elohim” sent “Yeshua”.

This is not because Jesus was just a perfect man who managed not to sin at all, but because he was, and is, God - God himself was paying the price for our sin against him.

That is the Christian Gospel, not the Gospel of Scripture. God sent His Son, not Himself. Is YHWH trying to deceive us with John 3:16? Why not just say somewhere in the entire Bible that "God himself was paying the price for our sin against him" or that "God sent Himself to die for the sins of the world"? We don't find such verses because it is not true. It is being read into the Bible.

Three days after Jesus died on the cross, he was raised again. God raised him, thus proving that Jesus was who he had claimed to be;

So, you are teaching me that God died on the cross and that God raised God from the dead? Oy vey!!

one with the Father, the way to the Father, the Truth, the Good Shepherd who had authority to lay down his life and whose blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins. After Jesus ascended, he sent his Holy Spirit who gives us gifts and can live IN us; guiding us, convicting us of sin, empowering and equipping us to serve God. One day, Jesus will return to earth, not as a human and good teacher, but as king.
This is the Gospel. This is what is revealed and taught in Scripture, is what saves us and is what, I'm sure, all Christians agree on and proclaim.

I agree except that Yeshua did not send “his Holy Spirit”, but “the Holy Spirit”.

This is what I mean when I say that clergy etc teach doctrine from Scripture. No one would know anything about God without Scripture. No one would make up, or I think be able to make up, a divine being who entered into the world that he made, became one of us and then died to reconcile us to himself. I can't imagine anyone saying that Jesus was divine, that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or any other doctrine of our faith unless there was reason for saying so - and that reason is that it's taught in Scripture.

The reason is that they were deceived by Satan to give YHWH’s glory to the Son; to direct worship away from the Father to the Son in his attempt to cause us to sin.

The deity of Christ is something that has always divided people. But right from the early days, anyone who taught otherwise was considered a false teacher, and anyone who believed otherwise was said to have been led astray from the truth.

The “early days” you referred to were long after the apostles died. During the true “early days” of Yeshua and the apostles, the truth that YHWH alone was God was proclaimed.

It depends what you mean by "keeping the Sabbath".
If you mean setting aside one day to worship God; many do that. In fact we would say that he worship and honour God every day.
If you mean sitting around doing nothing on a Saturday because that is how to follow God's example of resting from work; I would disagree with that. For myself, I do not have a job, so do not need to rest from it to spend time with God. When I did have a job I often worked on a Saturday - nurses etc have to; people don't refrain from illness at the weekend.
The early church quickly began to celebrate Sunday as the Lord's day, the day on which he was raised from the dead, and that still continues today.

Worshiping and honoring God every day is acceptable. Working on the 7th day is not. Setting aside one day a week to worship God is not what God asks of us. He wants us to set aside the 7th day of the week (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) as the only day of rest so that we will have time to worship Him. Employment that involves saving lives or health is permissible on Sabbath. “Sitting around doing nothing on a Saturday” comes from the mouths of ignorant people who will say anything to discredit Sabbath keepers.

Yes, the early church quickly abandoned Sabbath keeping and began celebrating “the Lord’s Day”. It didn’t take the Israelites long to become corrupted either.

Jesus was the human name given to the Son of God when he became flesh and was born. The important issue is not whether you call him Yeshua, Joshua or Jesus, but whether you acknowledge who he was and what he said, taught and claimed. If someone always refers to Jesus by his Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/English name because they insist that that is correct, but they reject what he taught and stood for, and dismiss him as the only way to God; that won't do them any good.

I agree with your last sentence. I disagree with your first sentence. He was given the name Yeshua by his Father through an angel. Man changed it to Jesus.

If we were facing persecution and the question was "do you believe that Jesus was God and has saved you; yes or no?" There'd be no point in saying, "yes, but infant baptism, wearing robes, transubstantiation are" also necessary for salvation". And it would be wrong to say so. Jesus saves; NOT Jesus + something else. Believing these things doesn't make you any holier a person, or any more saved than someone who rejects them.

Yeshua saves, but you would have me believe something else saves as well (that I need to believe he is God). There is one God, Almighty YHWH, Yeshua’s Father who sent His only begotten Son to save the world and to be my personal Savior. That is what I would die for.

Again, you have said that Jesus was not ONLY a man. If you reject the teaching that he was God when he was on earth; who/what was he? An angel?
Even the most righteous prophet would not, I believe, have claimed the things that Jesus claimed, and no one has ever described a prophet in the way that he described Jesus - someone who shared God's glory before the world began and who is superior to the angels, Hebrews 1:4.

No, he is not an angel. Nor is he the one true God. He is a 100% human male that was created without the aid of a human father. He is the second Adam (both created 100% human without an earthly father). Yeshua was born less than the angels. It wasn’t until he was given all authority and power that he became superior to angels (Hebrews 2:9).

 

[gadar perets]

Bump

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree except “God” did not send “Jesus”. “Elohim” sent “Yeshua”.


That is the Christian Gospel, not the Gospel of Scripture. God sent His Son, not Himself. Is YHWH trying to deceive us with John 3:16? Why not just say somewhere in the entire Bible that "God himself was paying the price for our sin against him" or that "God sent Himself to die for the sins of the world"? We don't find such verses because it is not true. It is being read into the Bible.


So, you are teaching me that God died on the cross and that God raised God from the dead? Oy vey!!


I agree except that Yeshua did not send “his Holy Spirit”, but “the Holy Spirit”.


The reason is that they were deceived by Satan to give YHWH’s glory to the Son; to direct worship away from the Father to the Son in his attempt to cause us to sin.


The “early days” you referred to were long after the apostles died. During the true “early days” of Yeshua and the apostles, the truth that YHWH alone was God was proclaimed.


Worshiping and honoring God every day is acceptable. Working on the 7th day is not. Setting aside one day a week to worship God is not what God asks of us. He wants us to set aside the 7th day of the week (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) as the only day of rest so that we will have time to worship Him. Employment that involves saving lives or health is permissible on Sabbath. “Sitting around doing nothing on a Saturday” comes from the mouths of ignorant people who will say anything to discredit Sabbath keepers.

Yes, the early church quickly abandoned Sabbath keeping and began celebrating “the Lord’s Day”. It didn’t take the Israelites long to become corrupted either.


I agree with your last sentence. I disagree with your first sentence. He was given the name Yeshua by his Father through an angel. Man changed it to Jesus.


Yeshua saves, but you would have me believe something else saves as well (that I need to believe he is God). There is one God, Almighty YHWH, Yeshua’s Father who sent His only begotten Son to save the world and to be my personal Savior. That is what I would die for.


No, he is not an angel. Nor is he the one true God. He is a 100% human male that was created without the aid of a human father. He is the second Adam (both created 100% human without an earthly father). Yeshua was born less than the angels. It wasn’t until he was given all authority and power that he became superior to angels (Hebrews 2:9).

....yeah. I hate to say this, but I think that's all wrong, gadar perets. My perspective is that Jesus is THE Logos of God (in Greek lines of thought), or THE Angel of God (in Hebrew lines of thought). Either way, Jesus is divine in nature and was pre-existing before His incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth, the Carpenter who died for our sins and rose again.

 

[gadar perets]

....yeah. I hate to say this, but I think that's all wrong, gadar perets. My perspective is that Jesus is THE Logos of God (in Greek lines of thought), or THE Angel of God (in Hebrew lines of thought). Either way, Jesus is divine in nature and was pre-existing before His incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth, the Carpenter who died for our sins and rose again.

Stating your view is the easy part. Proving it with Scripture is the hard part.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Stating your view is the easy part. Proving it with Scripture is the hard part.

Of course it's difficult to do, but it isn't impossible. And I'm confident that your non-trinitarian position is false.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

In the Apocrypha, there are a lot of powers, principalities, archons and angels (four classes) doing things on behalf of the Most High God, or the "Lord of Spirits" - sanctioned, allowed and/or ordered by Him. Hence, the "Elohim" (plural, but singular connotations). It is similar to the angel in Revelation talking to John on behalf of God (first person,) but when John was about to worship the angel, the angel told him not to do it because he was a fellowservent.

Christ (Ancient of Days, Wisdom/Logos/Word of God in the Apocrypha) is founded as being "existent" always without bound or beginning (hence, the "ancient of days" title.) But, Christ is also well founded that He will be a Salvation for man in the apocrypha.

The same information is available in the canon.

 

[gadar perets]

Of course it's difficult to do, but it isn't impossible. And I'm confident that your non-trinitarian position is false.

I cannot be confident that yours is true unless you present Scripture (a few at a time) that I can check to see if you have correctly understood them.

 

[gadar perets]

In the Apocrypha, there are a lot of powers, principalities, archons and angels (four classes) doing things on behalf of the Most High God, or the "Lord of Spirits" - sanctioned, allowed and/or ordered by Him. Hence, the "Elohim" (plural, but singular connotations). It is similar to the angel in Revelation talking to God on behalf of God (first person,) but when John was about to worship the angel, the angel told him not to do it because he was a fellowservent.

That messenger was a fellowservent because he was a resurrected man as was Messiah. He was most likely resurrected along with those saints in Matthew 27:51-53.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I cannot be confident that yours is true unless you present Scripture (a few at a time) that I can check to see if you have correctly understood them.

...you're going to ... "check" ... to see if I have correctly understood them? Really?

Here's what I'm thinking at this point, gadar: if we're going to compare notes on Christology and how all of that relates to the doctrine of the Trinity, then you need to lay out your methodology and hermeneutic as you apply it to the Bible. This way, I can see if our methodologies and hermeneutics match up, or if they at least coincide in some approximate way.

I mean, if you think you're the superior in all of this (and thus my teacher), then you could do me the courtesy of the above.

 

[gadar perets]

...you're going to ... "check" ... to see if I have correctly understood them? Really?

Yes, really. We have some people on this forum that do not know the first thing about studying Scripture. For example, anyone who tells me that "Jesus is my Heavenly Father" has shown me they do not understand the relevant verses correctly.

Here's what I'm thinking at this point, gadar: if we're going to compare notes on Christology and how all of that relates to the doctrine of the Trinity, then you need to lay out your methodology and hermeneutic as you apply it to the Bible. This way, I can see if our methodologies and hermeneutics match up, or if they at least coincide in some approximate way.

I mean, if you think you're the superior in all of this (and thus my teacher), then you could do me the courtesy of the above.

I start with prayer. Then I gather all the related verses on a given topic and study them using the same basic hermeneutics that Christians use. I study a verse/passage in the context of the surrounding verses, the chapter, the book and the Bible as a whole. I do not read whatever I want into the texts. I interpret verses in their historic context (that context being the time period in which the books were written). I do not rely on English translations concerning controversial verses. I check the Hebrew and/or Greek to see if the English meaning is correct or if other possible meanings can be derived from the Hebrew or Greek that results in a harmony of verses.

Is there something in particular you were looking for me to say or omit? What is your methodology and hermeneutics?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, really. We have some people on this forum that do not know the first thing about studying Scripture.

Sure. That's to be expected. Not everyone has the time, aptitude or means to become educated about hermeneutical issues. And that's why God set some to be apostles (early on), some to be evangelists, some to be pastors, and some to be teachers, administrators, and various ministers within the leadership of the Church.

For example, anyone who tells me that "Jesus is my Heavenly Father" has shown me they do not understand the relevant verses correctly.

Sure. Jesus Himself is not my Heavenly Father; rather He is the Christ, the Son of God, and my Lord; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

I start with prayer. Then I gather all the related verses on a given topic and study them using the same basic hermeneutics that Christians use. I study a verse/passage in the context of the surrounding verses, the chapter, the book and the Bible as a whole. I do not read whatever I want into the texts. I interpret verses in their historic context (that context being the time period in which the books were written). I do not rely on English translations concerning controversial verses. I check the Hebrew and/or Greek to see if the English meaning is correct or if other possible meanings can be derived from the Hebrew or Greek that results in a harmony of verses.

You start with prayer. Ok. That's sounds fine with me. But so do a lot of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, and various other pseudo-Christian cult teachers.

You say you then study the gathered, related verses using the same, basic hermeneutical method that Christians use. Really? Which one?

And you study verses/passages in the context of the surrounding verses, and all the rest of the various levels of context. Ok. That's sounds similar to what I do. And neither do I rely solely on English translations.

Is there something in particular you were looking for me to say or omit? What is your methodology and hermeneutics?

I would assume that you'd first study Jewish Hermeneutics to gain insights into the various traditional Jewish ways of interpreting Scripture, and then use that as a springboard for contrasts and comparisons to take further inform your study of various Greek/Christian ways of interpreting Scripture. And it's always good to have some references for hermeneutics, exegesis, and historical development of these very issues during the last 2,000 years on the side so you aren't just winging it on a prayer and a collection of verses.

So, all of this together would be a general summation of my approach to hermeneutics.

 

[gadar perets]

Sure. Jesus Himself is not my Heavenly Father; rather He is the Christ, the Son of God, and my Lord; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

So we agree on the first three points, but you went one step further and made the Son "the only true God" by making him the second person of a "Holy Trinity" (based on the definition of "Holy Trinity"). That would contradict Yeshua's own words in John 17:3 in which he said his Father (Almighty YHWH) is the only true God.

You say you then study the gathered, related verses using the same, basic hermeneutical method that Christians use. Really? Which one?

Primarily, the literal interpretation.

I would assume that you'd first study Jewish Hermeneutics to gain insights into the various traditional Jewish ways of interpreting Scripture, and then use that as a springboard for contrasts and comparisons to take further inform your study of various Greek/Christian ways of interpreting Scripture. And it's always good to have some references for hermeneutics, exegesis, and historical development of these very issues during the last 2,000 years on the side so you aren't just winging it on a prayer and a collection of verses.

I agree, but I don't care much for the Sod level and Jewish mysticism.

So now that we both laid out our methodology, how do you propose we continue?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So we agree on the first three points, but you went one step further and made the Son "the only true God" by making him the second person of a "Holy Trinity" (based on the definition of "Holy Trinity"). That would contradict Yeshua's own words in John 17:3 in which he said his Father (Almighty YHWH) is the only true God.

Of course, The Father is the only true God. So, in light of what you told me about referring to various contexts, do we stop there in our attempt to understand Jesus' full meaning in this verse? Does this verse alone provide a prooftext that stops all further inquiry into the nature of Jesus as the Christ? Is there some principle that the Bible teaches that tells us to choose and start with the citation of John 17:3 as the beginning point for biblical interpretation regarding the nature of Christ; or was this an arbitrary decision on your part alone?

Primarily, the literal interpretation.

...that's not exactly what I was asking about. Do you have any books or reference sources on the field and application of biblical hermeneutics? If so, could you cite what sources you are referencing? Or is the interpretation you're sharing with me simply one of your own devising "as the Spirit leads you to make it"?

I agree, but I don't care much for the Sod level and Jewish mysticism.

I agree. It's more than enough to be aware that some Jewish interpreters, similar to how some of the more Charismatic Christians rely on mystical feelings to "understand" God's Will, rely on a very esoteric and mystical approach to interpreting the Scriptures, and I won't be referring or relying upon these personages for my interpretation.

So now that we both laid out our methodology, how do you propose we continue?

I don't think we've yet fully laid out our methodology, but we can being slowly and methodically, and you could answer my questions above, for starters.

 

[gadar perets]

Of course, The Father is the only true God. So, in light of what you told me about referring to various contexts, do we stop there in our attempt to understand Jesus' full meaning in this verse? Does this verse alone provide a prooftext that stops all further inquiry into the nature of Jesus as the Christ? Is there some principle that the Bible teaches that tells us to choose and start with the citation of John 17:3 as the beginning point for biblical interpretation regarding the nature of Christ; or was this an arbitrary decision on your part alone?

No, we don't stop there, but that is a firm foundation on which to build. Yeshua did not include himself in that statement. The only true God sent Yeshua.

...that's not exactly what I was asking about. Do you have any books or reference sources on the field and application of biblical hermeneutics? If so, could you cite what sources you are referencing? Or is the interpretation you're sharing with me simply one of your own devising "as the Spirit leads you to make it"?

My references are online as needed, but none of them outweigh the Spirit's leading. Keep in mind that hermeneutics are simply man made rules. If I was to break a rule that you think I shouldn't, then simply tell me and I will consider your view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, we don't stop there, but that is a firm foundation on which to build. Yeshua did not include himself in that statement. The only true God sent Yeshua.

Ok. So, as far as you're concerned, you can cite John 17:3...and that's enough? We're done? This verse is self-explanatory as to what it "means," so there's no need to check further contexts? I'm asking because you're the one who claims to have figured this out by special revelation through the leading of the Holy Spirit, so I'm just an inlocutionary by-stander. I claim no such position for myself, and no special insights, or for the way in which we come to understand the Bible. So, you need to explain this.

My references are online as needed, but none of them outweigh the Spirit's leading. Keep in mind that hermeneutics are simply man made rules. If I was to break a rule that you think I shouldn't, then simply tell me and I will consider your view.

Ok, so let me see if I have this right, because I don't want to misrepresent you: Based on what you said previously about taking the "literal approach" to interpretation, and adding what you've said here, then would it be accurate for me to say that the Literal Approach (whatever that is, really) is simply a man made rule?

 

[gadar perets]

Ok. So, as far as you're concerned, you can cite John 17:3...and that's enough? We're done? This verse is self-explanatory as to what it "means," so there's no need to check further contexts?

I guess you didn't read my post very well. I wrote, "No, we don't stop there, but that is a firm foundation on which to build.". That means we are not done, but we have established a firm foundation.

I'm asking because you're the one who claims to have figured this out by special revelation through the leading of the Holy Spirit, so I'm just an inlocutionary by-stander. I claim no such position for myself, and no special insights, or for the way in which we come to understand the Bible. So, you need to explain this.

I don't recall saying I received my view by "special revelation". I did say the Holy Spirit outweighs hermeneutic references. If you don't believe that, then we have a big chasm in understanding the Spirit's role in leading a believer into all truth. The Spirit can lead us to use hermeneutic references, but in the end, it is the Spirit that does the teaching.

Ok, so let me see if I have this right, because I don't want to misrepresent you: Based on what you said previously about taking the "literal approach" to interpretation, and adding what you've said here, then would it be accurate for me to say that the Literal Approach (whatever that is, really) is simply a man made rule?

I did not use your misquoted words "literal approach". I wrote, "literal interpretation". Please be accurate when quoting me.

"Literal interpretation" is one of four major types of hermeneutics: literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical. They are simply different ways to interpret Scripture. Of those four, I prefer the literal interpretation which adheres to the plain meaning of the text based on the grammar and historical context..

Now, I think I have been very patient with you as I jump through all your hoops. Can we start addressing Scripture? What is your understanding of John 17:3?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess you didn't read my post very well. I wrote, "No, we don't stop there, but that is a firm foundation on which to build.". That means we are not done, but we have established a firm foundation.

No, I read your post, Gadar, but I wouldn't call citing one verse a "firm foundation." But, please continue. I'm open to learning.

I don't recall saying I received my view by "special revelation". I did say the Holy Spirit outweighs hermeneutic references. If you don't believe that, then we have a big chasm in understanding the Spirit's role in leading a believer into all truth. The Spirit can lead us to use hermeneutic references, but in the end, it is the Spirit that does the teaching.

To some degree, I can agree with your statement here. The problem is we have many people claiming to be 'led by the Spirit' into diverse interpretations about various passages of the Bible. You and I both know that the Spirit is not an author of confusion, so I just think we need to admit that we don't always know if the Spirit is really leading us. We just need to be honest.

I did not use your misquoted words "literal approach". I wrote, "literal interpretation". Please be accurate when quoting me.

Okay. I will do better to precisely quote you rather than to paraphrase.

"Literal interpretation" is one of four major types of hermeneutics: literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical. They are simply different ways to interpret Scripture. Of those four, I prefer the literal interpretation which adheres to the plain meaning of the text based on the grammar and historical context.

Ok. I can accept your general definition of literal interpretation. There more to it than that, but that'll work for now.

Now, I think I have been very patient with you as I jump through all your hoops. Can we start addressing Scripture? What is your understanding of John 17:3?

My understanding of John 17:3. Basically that eternal life is gained by "knowing" the true God AND Jesus Christ, whom God "sent." It's just not clear exactly what the nature of the concepts of "knowing" or "sent" mean here all by themselves. So far, I'm not seeing anything here that either affirms or denies the Trinity. Am I missing something?

So, I'm following along with your explanation as you present it. Please continue.